They don't seem to be real worried about it, either, from what I've seen

/I don't believe for a minute this situation is any different from the dozen other times Best Korea has screamed and squealed and stomped it's little feet

I agree; the south would tear through the Norks like chilli through an old folks home.

Pretty much. I was talking about this over Facebook with my brother the other day, and this was his take on it:

"Here's the thing with Best Korea: They do not know how to get their way in the international scene by any other means than saber rattling. They're like a small, petulant child who only throws tantrums, and the international community, like parents who are frustrated and tired, simply give in after a while because they don't want the screaming to keep happening in public.

"If they do go nutso and ACTUALLY try something, however, the result will probably be initially quite bad but over very fast. Seoul will get pounded, and there will be a lot of casualties there. Which is horrible. But after taking a bloody nose from the DPRK, the South Korea/US alliance will pound their military into a fine powder. Currently we have two aircraft carrier battle groups within strike range, plus two divisions of ground troops and two wings of land-based aircraft. The technology level of DPRK is ancient compared to this, I mean hell, they're still flying MiG-17s, which are Korean War-era aircraft. Grand total they have around 110 operational aircraft out of a claimed 1,500. A single squadron of F/A-18s and a couple Arliegh Burke-class cruisers would be enough to deal with that.

"And don't worry about China in all this. China knows if a war starts, they're going to be dealing with MILLIONS of Korean refugees, a humanitarian disaster on a scale they've never had. They are getting really frustrated with the little pipsqueak they said they'd defend, and just recently voted FOR the UN sanctions in the security council. If a war does happen, you'll see China make a wall of soldiers just behind the Yalu River, and that will be the anvil against which the US/South Korea hammer strikes."

Diogenes:"The terms of the armistice agreement do not allow either side unilaterally to free themselves from it," said Nesirky, the spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Well, that's a nice sentiment and all. But if Best Korea starts taking military actions against Lesser Korea, I think it's a rather moot point.

timujin:The U.N. can say it's still valid, but that doesn't mean anything if Best Korea decides to ignore it.

I think it means something on legal grounds. As in, if one side unilaterally decides to walk away from the agreement, there are more international law ramifications. This most likely isn't going to end up with war, but it could definitely end up with NK having more sanctions and other bad shiat happen to them because they've decided to walk away from a peace agreement that has been in place for 60 years.

In other words, even if NK doesn't start a war, they've still made things even worse for themselves with this stunt.

North Korea is like the stupid drunk guys who yells and screams about how he's going to kick everyone's ass, and everyone else is too smart to take him up on it, but they still worry a little because they think he might keep a gun in his car, but there's a pretty good chance he can't even remember where he parked his car.

Balance. Because of the threat the DPRK poses the US maintains an enhanced military presence in the region. China believes that the presence of American forces in the region helps to stabilize what would otherwise be a cauldron of intense and bitter rivalries with historical and ethnic overtones. A large US presence reassures China's neighbors to some extent (that American forces would intervene if they are attacked). What China doesn't want to see is a major rearmament of it's neighbors. Replacing a distant and relatively disinterested political entity with heavily armed regional rivals isn't a desirable exchange.

Dr. Goldshnoz:I know it was foolish of me, but I was really hopeful kim jong un would do more than the constant retarded sabre rattling his father was known for.

I am actually beginning to wonder whether that kid is "running" anything at all. We may be looking at the Asian equivalent of a typical Latin American junta, where the "leader" is a puppet, and the military is actually running the whole show.When your first act in power is to arrange a visit from Dennis Rodman, it kind of tarnishes your supervillian cred, in my eyes.

KiwDaWabbit:I want to think that North Korea doesn't want armed conflict. We all realize that they could go down in a "blaze of glory" and decimate Seoul, but to what end? What's left of North Korea will be commandeered and the whole God-King deal will be over.

North Korea doesn't want armed conflict, to be sure. But its leaders have never been models of mental stability, and Kim Jong-Un has, in a very short time, proven himself the worst of the lot by leaps and bounds on his score. It's only a matter of time before he snaps, and I don't think it's going to be a very long time. We can't count on his underlings to betray him when that happens, either by disobeying orders or by outright removing him; not when he rules by a personality cult stretching back three generations. Certainly there will not be a popular revolt.

It bothers me to call for someone's death. It really does. But for crying out loud, someone put a bullet in this man's brain before he nukes somebody.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!:Sgt.Zim: I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.

You don't even have to try hard. We were always warned that a good many of those arty emplacements were equipped to fire chemical and biological rounds.

NO-GO.

First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south. Second, the Koreans will not allow nukes to be used on their soil (they include the north in that definition) and their norK brothers and sisters. Not to mention the neighbors are a bit squeamish about anyone throwing around nukes, especially the Japanese, for some reason. You can also bet it would greatly upset China and Russia who are very close. Lest we also not forget the direction some of the fallout would be carried. The US has already received radiation from Fukishima, and that was far from a bomb. And of course the world outrage in general. Bad PR.

KiwDaWabbit:jm105: alice_600: Okay I wanna ask the arm chair generals: What do you do with the people of North Korea after the war to rebuild?

Send in the Germans. They handled their own reunification well enough.

I have thought about that as a model. One pretty substantial difference is that West Germany had the world's fourth largest GDP in under three decades after World War II ended. I think also, and this is just conjecture on my part, that Germany was under a lot more scrutiny in the beginning phases of the reunification due to what Germany had done to the world less than fifty years before.

While there are a lot of similarities between Germany and Korea, there are also a lot of substantial differences, some of which are generational. Germany's split lasted roughly forty five years, which is a long time, but I'm sure there were some people who were around before the end of the war and potentially even before the war itself started. If you're in North Korea and under the age of 65, you haven't known a head of state who wasn't a Kim.

I want to think that North Korea doesn't want armed conflict. We all realize that they could go down in a "blaze of glory" and decimate Seoul, but to what end? What's left of North Korea will be commandeered and the whole God-King deal will be over.

Predictions: Samsung and other Chaebols will have a source of near slave labor. This will also bring the standard of living down the for south. The peninsula will still be divided to prevent waves of hungry and poorly educated norK's from inundating the south.

East and West Germany is the nearest example of such a reunification but there are other huge differences as was pointed out. Many younger South Koreans do not desire reunification at the expense of their lifestyles. The ones pushing it are the much older Koreans and the Korean equivalent of the Teapartiers.

/doctrinally "NORK" is written "norK" not "Nork". The letter "n" is always lowercase as well as the "or" and the "K" is always uppercase. - norK//it's a Korean thing

I should be in the kitchen:Dr. Goldshnoz: I know it was foolish of me, but I was really hopeful kim jong un would do more than the constant retarded sabre rattling his father was known for.

Same here. Although so far, it's been hard to take Un seriously as any kind of threat.

I almost hope he does try something, just to see that little troll squashed like a bug, but I don't want harm to come to NK civilians.

As horrible as a war in Korea would be, if it results in the end of the Kim dynasty, it'll be far better for the North Korean people in the long term.

Usually, "regime change" backfires in the end and the new leader turns out to be about as bad, if not worse, than the original leader that got overthrown. I can't see, though, how anyone would be worse for North Korea than this family of sociopaths.

vygramul:realmolo: You have to wonder if China is saying to itself "We really should kill this guy and put our own guy in there".

The Chinese are evil, but they aren't stupid, and they don't like being associated with stupid.

Dunno - they can be slooooow to learn. I mean, seriously, no joke, in 1980, they decided that runners weren't cutting it in their war against Vietnam, and that they should probably look into this "radio" thing everyone keeps talking about.

/Even CHINA lost to Vietnam

Everyone loses to Vietnam. The Mongols lost to Vietnam for gods sake. Vietnam has this book. Whenever they get attacked they open the book and it tells them what to do to defend themselves. Mostly it involves digging lots of holes and putting down pointy sticks.

RandomRandom:How long would it take us to disable Five Thousand long-range artillery pieces, each embedded in its own hardened concrete bunker? Not hours, days would be the best case, a week would be most accurate. Getting through hardened concrete takes a direct hit from a large, directed munition. Drones might help, repeated counter-battery might work, eventually, but one suspects most of the heavy lifting would be done by manned aircraft and laser guided 2,000 lb bombs. 5,000 is a lot of sorties.

vygramul:realmolo: You have to wonder if China is saying to itself "We really should kill this guy and put our own guy in there".

The Chinese are evil, but they aren't stupid, and they don't like being associated with stupid.

Dunno - they can be slooooow to learn. I mean, seriously, no joke, in 1980, they decided that runners weren't cutting it in their war against Vietnam, and that they should probably look into this "radio" thing everyone keeps talking about.

Just like Seoul, China really, really, really doesn't want millions of refugees pouring over the border. I think they'd be pretty pissed if we whistled up the B-2s. But of course, sometimes you just have to bomb the sh*t out of a place, because that's the way it is.

They have the withering artillery, Soviet Doctrine, to overwhelm the South. They have the massive but poorly trained, China Doctrine, infantry to inundate - mostly by attrition, and just drown them with soldiers. They are a product, doctrine-wise, of their military partners. Seoul is to close. The UN, the US, don't have a good answer, without going nuclear of course, which they will not.

phrawgh:NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Sgt.Zim: I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.

You don't even have to try hard. We were always warned that a good many of those arty emplacements were equipped to fire chemical and biological rounds.

NO-GO.

First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south. Second, the Koreans will not allow nukes to be used on their soil (they include the north in that definition) and their norK brothers and sisters. Not to mention the neighbors are a bit squeamish about anyone throwing around nukes, especially the Japanese, for some reason. You can also bet it would greatly upset China and Russia who are very close. Lest we also not forget the direction some of the fallout would be carried. The US has already received radiation from Fukishima, and that was far from a bomb. And of course the world outrage in general. Bad PR.

It's a non-starter. There are other ways to skin a cat...

I wasn't saying nukes was a good idea, just that you didn't have to twist that hard to make an argument they have WMD's on the border.

I suspect our plan is something like "Launch every fighter and bomber located in south korea, and any carrier air groups in range and start bombing the ever loving fark out of the border while decimating their aircover, while every B-52 left in service heads over to carpet bomb whatever is left."

Sgt.Zim:I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.

You don't even have to try hard. We were always warned that a good many of those arty emplacements were equipped to fire chemical and biological rounds.

jm105:alice_600: Okay I wanna ask the arm chair generals: What do you do with the people of North Korea after the war to rebuild?

Send in the Germans. They handled their own reunification well enough.

I have thought about that as a model. One pretty substantial difference is that West Germany had the world's fourth largest GDP in under three decades after World War II ended. I think also, and this is just conjecture on my part, that Germany was under a lot more scrutiny in the beginning phases of the reunification due to what Germany had done to the world less than fifty years before.

While there are a lot of similarities between Germany and Korea, there are also a lot of substantial differences, some of which are generational. Germany's split lasted roughly forty five years, which is a long time, but I'm sure there were some people who were around before the end of the war and potentially even before the war itself started. If you're in North Korea and under the age of 65, you haven't known a head of state who wasn't a Kim.

I want to think that North Korea doesn't want armed conflict. We all realize that they could go down in a "blaze of glory" and decimate Seoul, but to what end? What's left of North Korea will be commandeered and the whole God-King deal will be over.

It's a really interesting question. China and South Korea are booming economically, and given the industrious nature of Koreans in general, it's almost assured they would have a better life if they tried to immigrate. The question is, do they really understand the stark disparity in fortunes? If some bold North Koreans decide to go, would it kick off a larger movement? Would many feel inclinded to stay put out of Juche/patriotism they've been indoctrinated with their entire lives? Your premise is right on - there is huge uncertainty regarding the scale of any immigration. The risk of millions pouring over the border, both in China and Seoul, is very real and it's always taken into account when dealing with North Korea.

This text is now purple:JK47: Balance. Because of the threat the DPRK poses the US maintains an enhanced military presence in the region. China believes that the presence of American forces in the region helps to stabilize what would otherwise be a cauldron of intense and bitter rivalries with historical and ethnic overtones. A large US presence reassures China's neighbors to some extent (that American forces would intervene if they are attacked).

The concept that Americans just aren't that interested in a war, and whitey can't tell any of them apart anyhow, so they don't care about whose ancient ancestor took advantage of who?

Interesting concept.

Compared to the rivalries between China and it's neighbors, the United States just isn't that antagonistic.

Would there be that many refugees? I'm honestly asking, I'm a bit ignorant on the subject so I know I'm missing something. Let's say some infrastructure and the leadership was bombed. Outside of some of the folks used to living in the cities, aren't most of the people used to living without the infrastructure, and could get along without the leaders coontil some new leaders were in place)? Or would they just be leaving for the sake of leaving, because now they can?

FTFY.

Have you not seen the Best Korea at night picture. There's like one place with lights and that's probably only coming from the little Uns and his buddies houses.

Take a look at Pyongyang on Google Earth. They have streets, but very few cars. It looks like a ghost town.

Would there be that many refugees? I'm honestly asking, I'm a bit ignorant on the subject so I know I'm missing something. Let's say some infrastructure and the leadership was bombed. Outside of some of the folks used to living in the cities, aren't most of the people used to living without the infrastructure, and could get along without the leaders coontil some new leaders were in place)? Or would they just be leaving for the sake of leaving, because now they can?

FTFY.

Have you not seen the Best Korea at night picture. There's like one place with lights and that's probably only coming from the little Uns and his buddies houses.

Would there be that many refugees? I'm honestly asking, I'm a bit ignorant on the subject so I know I'm missing something. Let's say some infrastructure and the leadership was bombed. Outside of some of the folks used to living in the cities, aren't most of the people used to living without the infrastructure, and could get along without the leaders coontil some new leaders were in place)? Or would they just be leaving for the sake of leaving, because now they can?

RandomRandom:It's not just a refugee crisis that South Korea is really worried about, it's the NK's 5000 hardened artillery positions within firing range of Seoul. If NK gets hit bombed by the west, even a little, even just the nuke sites, the north will probably start firing shells at Seoul.

How long would it take us to disable Five Thousand long-range artillery pieces, each embedded in its own hardened concrete bunker? Not hours, days would be the best case, a week would be most accurate. Getting through hardened concrete takes a direct hit from a large, directed munition. Drones might help, repeated counter-battery might work, eventually, but one suspects most of the heavy lifting would be done by manned aircraft and laser guided 2,000 lb bombs. 5,000 is a lot of sorties.

Here's the big deal. How many shots would the NK howitzers get off before being destroyed? Modern artillery can fire a few rounds a minute, but lets say that each of the 5000 fire just 1 round per minute and are - on average, destroyed after just one hour of firing.

Using that artificially low rate of fire and terribly optimistic rate of destroying their guns, it would still result in 300,000 high explosive and incendiary shells hitting Seoul in the first hour of fighting. After the first hour of fighting, Seoul would look like Dresden. If the war came on fast, in response to say, a surprise attack by the west, a good proportion of Seoul's 25 million population would see their last day on earth.

It's not Best Korea's nukes that have everyone in the South worried, it's their half-century old gun tech. Which unless we have some new technology hidden away that is able to instantly disable 5000 howitzers, the chances of a preemptive strike against the north's nukes is about as close to 0% as it gets.

you're assuming they could afford rounds for all the guns(assuming all those guns actually exist), that are in good shape and won't A: detonate in the barrel, or B: dud on impact, assuming the guns were maintained in anything other than a 'slap some paint on it so the inspection passes' way.

again assuming all the guns were real.

honestly best way is as discussed in thread: use thermobaric rounds targeted on the various gun-sites. those positions are well plotted. it only takes a few seconds to traverse a howitzer, and a well trained crew can crack off a round every 4-5 seconds at maximum fire rates. assuming a battalion worth of guns being what, about 40-50 howitzers, one round every ten seconds per gun amounts to 240-300 rounds in the air every MINUTE. 5000 gun sites would take a bare 20 minutes to cover. with a single battalion. throw in another and it starts looking pretty damn bleak.

and, as a follow-up act, have them do a second barrage, say three rounds per site, of cluster mine-layer munitions, a 70-30% mix of anti-personnel to anti-vehicle.

Clash City Farker:vygramul: realmolo: You have to wonder if China is saying to itself "We really should kill this guy and put our own guy in there".

The Chinese are evil, but they aren't stupid, and they don't like being associated with stupid.

Dunno - they can be slooooow to learn. I mean, seriously, no joke, in 1980, they decided that runners weren't cutting it in their war against Vietnam, and that they should probably look into this "radio" thing everyone keeps talking about.

/Even CHINA lost to Vietnam

Everyone loses to Vietnam. The Mongols lost to Vietnam for gods sake. Vietnam has this book. Whenever they get attacked they open the book and it tells them what to do to defend themselves. Mostly it involves digging lots of holes and putting down pointy sticks.

Damnit, I never learned how to defend myself against pointed sticks. The teacher kept focusing on different kinds of fresh fruit, every single class. I'm totally ready if anyone every attacks me with loganberries, though.

KangTheMad:If I was a NK military defense planner, which fortunately I am not

Why 'fortunately'? It sounds like it's a pretty easy job. A couple hours in the morning screaming at Worst Koreans across the DMZ, execute a few guys by mortar afterwards, and cook up some ludicrous provocations before lunch and you're done for the day.

KangTheMad:Hot Carl To Go: KarmicDisaster: RandomRandom:Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned. Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use. The problem once again is expense. Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system. Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending. Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any ...

I know nothing but I wonder about a synchronized cruise missile attack on the artillery positions. They can be exceedingly accurate, of course, and that might be enough to circumvent any hardening of the emplacements; fly it right in the window. At the first sign of trouble, launch them all to strike simultaneously, and hit their exposed missile launch sites too. I guess that I don't know enough about what kinds/sizes of warheads are available.

Sounds feasible to this armchair general. I think it might be cost prohibitive though. Can't we just sail a plague ship into their harbor?

Feasible, yes. Depending what platform you launch it from. Even if you catch the NKs sleeping, they'd still have time to launch from their missile base in the north, which means they can still hit Japan, Alaska, South Korea. You'd still be having a drawn-out artillery duel until you obtain air supremacy. And given my ideal placement of SAMs, and depending on how clever the North Korean pilots are, that might be longer than we would think. (Still really short, since their airforce would be horribly outnumbered. They might not even deploy their airforce until they -had- to.

I would think China might step in with an invasion just to prevent the US from taking over a country and setting up shop directly on their border.

Hot Carl To Go:KarmicDisaster: RandomRandom:Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned. Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use. The problem once again is expense. Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system. Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending. Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any ...

I know nothing but I wonder about a synchronized cruise missile attack on the artillery positions. They can be exceedingly accurate, of course, and that might be enough to circumvent any hardening of the emplacements; fly it right in the window. At the first sign of trouble, launch them all to strike simultaneously, and hit their exposed missile launch sites too. I guess that I don't know enough about what kinds/sizes of warheads are available.

Sounds feasible to this armchair general. I think it might be cost prohibitive though. Can't we just sail a plague ship into their harbor?

Well, that or a fire ship. I do hope that our planners actually have a plan to take out the artillery positions rapidly. Supposedly there aren't actually that many that can hit Seoul, and they have had 60 years to map them out and identify the fake ones.

KarmicDisaster:RandomRandom:Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned. Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use. The problem once again is expense. Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system. Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending. Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any ...

I know nothing but I wonder about a synchronized cruise missile attack on the artillery positions. They can be exceedingly accurate, of course, and that might be enough to circumvent any hardening of the emplacements; fly it right in the window. At the first sign of trouble, launch them all to strike simultaneously, and hit their exposed missile launch sites too. I guess that I don't know enough about what kinds/sizes of warheads are available.

Sounds feasible to this armchair general. I think it might be cost prohibitive though. Can't we just sail a plague ship into their harbor?

RandomRandom:JohnAnnArbor: Might be a good reason to use ground-penetrating nuclear weapons. One assumes they're in clusters, not totally isolated from one another, because of range considerations.

In a few years, we might be well on our way to a system to shoot the shells down with lasers. (Really.) That would change things quite a bit--if it could be proven to work reliably.

And that's probably why NK is working so hard on nukes. They figure that one of these days the west will find a way counter their artillery. They're probably right. I can think of a few ways right now, expensive, but potentially workable methods to counter their artillery threat.

The south could build an MLRS type rocket system consisting of (very expensive) inertially guided (not GPS) rockets with thermobaric warheads. The NK is sure to jam the hell out of GPS, so there's no point in going that route. Inertial guidance is a lot more expensive, it's the sort used in cruise missiles. It uses an internal map of roads and landmarks and follows those. Given that the north can't exactly move their gun emplacements around, the routes for each rocket could be pre-programmed. A small theromobaric rocket might not destroy the gun emplacements, but it would very likely scramble anyone inside. You'd need enough of them to hit ever emplacement multiple times, and be able to fire them all within minutes of the initiation of hostilities.

Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned. Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use. The problem once again is expense. Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system. Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending. Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any ...

And we haven't even started talking about all the tunnels, known and unknown, the NKoreans have bored under the DMZ.

JohnAnnArbor:Might be a good reason to use ground-penetrating nuclear weapons. One assumes they're in clusters, not totally isolated from one another, because of range considerations.

In a few years, we might be well on our way to a system to shoot the shells down with lasers. (Really.) That would change things quite a bit--if it could be proven to work reliably.

And that's probably why NK is working so hard on nukes. They figure that one of these days the west will find a way counter their artillery. They're probably right. I can think of a few ways right now, expensive, but potentially workable methods to counter their artillery threat.

The south could build an MLRS type rocket system consisting of (very expensive) inertially guided (not GPS) rockets with thermobaric warheads. The NK is sure to jam the hell out of GPS, so there's no point in going that route. Inertial guidance is a lot more expensive, it's the sort used in cruise missiles. It uses an internal map of roads and landmarks and follows those. Given that the north can't exactly move their gun emplacements around, the routes for each rocket could be pre-programmed. A small theromobaric rocket might not destroy the gun emplacements, but it would very likely scramble anyone inside. You'd need enough of them to hit ever emplacement multiple times, and be able to fire them all within minutes of the initiation of hostilities.

Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned. Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use. The problem once again is expense. Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system. Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending. Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any leaks.

How much would the military industrial complex charge for each copy of that laser system? If we're lucky, $10 million a copy. Multiply by 5000 and you have a half-decade of NASA's budget. No one wants to pay 50 billion dollars to counter a threat that could dissipate into insolvency or a people's revolution next week, but if I lived in Seoul, I'd damn sure want my government investing in something to counter the artillery threat.

Radioactive Ass:iheartscotch: The south wouldn't really need to go through the DMZ until then.

The problem with a Maginot Line is that it tends to point in only one direction and that if the other guy knows it then it's easy to overcome with a little bit of ingenuity.

Agreed; but, the Norks have been trying to get over, under, around or through the DMZ for 50 years. They've gotten close before; but, they don't count on the superior not-starvingness of the south's soldiers.

/ my old boss was stationed in the south during the late 70's. he had plenty of stories about the north's soldiers trying to sneak south.

JK47:China believes that the presence of American forces in the region helps to stabilize what would otherwise be a cauldron of intense and bitter rivalries with historical and ethnic overtones.

I would think China would want us out of there, no? It would be like inviting a bunch of Soviet troops to hang around in Mexico to keep the cartels under control.

Seems like it would be easy for the US to negotiate an exit from the Korean peninsula with China, as part of an overall plan to reunify the Koreas after deposing Kim. If it weren't for the requirement to enforce the 1952 ceasefire agreement, we wouldn't need to be there.

They don't seem to be real worried about it, either, from what I've seen

/I don't believe for a minute this situation is any different from the dozen other times Best Korea has screamed and squealed and stomped it's little feet

I agree; the south would tear through the Norks like chilli through an old folks home.

Except the Korean DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world with thousands of landmines. You would need a ton of engineering vehicles just to not have to go through single file.

That's assuming NK does any sort of ground offensive. They've been much more excited about their nuclear capabilities so it's entirely possible they'd lob missiles all over the place and dare UN forces to stomp all their poor widdle civilians conveniently living next to launch sites a la Hamas.

Ned Stark:Nope that's the end. North Korea is not party to the NNPT. Attempts to forcibly dismantle its nuclear program are unlawful.

Nobody is making them dismantle anything. They are simply deciding to not do trade with them while they do have a program. It's not unlawful to not sell someone something. Here look. I'm not going to sell you this beer, sue me.

Best Korea made itself an international pariah and has to deal with the consequences of doing so.

realmolo:You have to wonder if China is saying to itself "We really should kill this guy and put our own guy in there".

The Chinese are evil, but they aren't stupid, and they don't like being associated with stupid.

Dunno - they can be slooooow to learn. I mean, seriously, no joke, in 1980, they decided that runners weren't cutting it in their war against Vietnam, and that they should probably look into this "radio" thing everyone keeps talking about.

Shrugging Atlas:WhoopAssWayne: Just like Seoul, China really, really, really doesn't want millions of refugees pouring over the border. I think they'd be pretty pissed if we whistled up the B-2s. But of course, sometimes you just have to bomb the sh*t out of a place, because that's the way it is.

Not that any of this is that simple or that I was seriously advocating the idea or China actually thanking us for the deed, but I don't think a few strikes on out of the way facilities are going to start a refugee crisis. Hell, Best Korea might not even release that information on state run media and if they did I strongly doubt they would allow their cannon fodder citizens to run away to China.

No, but it'd give them enough of a moral ground for going bugfark and blowing shiat up that half the countries in the world that would stomp on them if they started it would stand back and argue for awhile first. Nobody wants to see that avalanche of shiat fall again, so he stomps his little feet and the rest of the grownups ignore his pudgy little ass. If he does fark with SK then everybody except China doesn't care who shoots him in the face. China might even join in just to get their hands on natural resources in the area.

I speak on the subject backed by ironclad speculations and personal conjecture.

Shrugging Atlas:but I don't think a few strikes on out of the way facilities are going to start a refugee crisis.

Right - I was thinking more in terms of it escalating into that situation. Definitely a lot of things could short-circuit a refugee crisis or another war, but I think the risk is there given how unstable they are.

Dr. Goldshnoz:I know it was foolish of me, but I was really hopeful kim jong un would do more than the constant retarded sabre rattling his father was known for.

Think of 26 year old you and how you would likely answer the following question:

Would you like to carefully push through a period of graduated liberal reforms with careful negotiation with the various security services, generals and other power bases within your government......or would you like to be a god king.

At a minimum you're going to try the god king thing to see if it works out to give yourself the option of going back to the graduated liberal reforms later.

WhoopAssWayne:Shrugging Atlas: China would probably thank us at this rate.

Just like Seoul, China really, really, really doesn't want millions of refugees pouring over the border. I think they'd be pretty pissed if we whistled up the B-2s. But of course, sometimes you just have to bomb the sh*t out of a place, because that's the way it is.

That's why the three countries (the US, China and SKorea) need to come up with a post-fall plan NOW. We should explain that we will give them all needed aid for such a thing.

Japan could be required to give billions of aid as well to help. Call it war reparations or something.

I know it's unrealistic. But leaving the NKorean citizens with what they have now is cruel.